^I don't know why you want Europe divided. A united Europe is probably the best thing for native Europeans even for the far right. Remember Apartheid South Africa tried to unite the English and Boers. Nazi Germany tried to unite Germanic peoples. Dividing Europeans into numerous ethnicities ultimately harm all Europeans. You should at least agree that all Nordic peoples (or whoever you consider to be the master race) should merge into one ethnicity and one state.

The only people who should oppose EU as a concept as opposed to how EU is currently run are those who hate and want to dominate over Europeans.

Not sure why you think a United Europe is good when the last two times it tried to happen, Europe became a battleground. It even would have nationalist claims on other countries; Turkey, Minsk, Switzerland, Norway, Britain, Ukraine, and Russia.

Militant atheism can also be problem (like in the Soviet Union). However there is no doctrine in atheism that states that atheists must eradicate theism or they will go to some atheist hell, hence despite the fact that atheism is not logically compatible with theism, it can tolerate theism in action.

Actually, there is a motivation for atheists to press their belief on others. Atheism is an inherently supremacist belief system, since it is basically always justified with some sort of reasoning. While I'm sure there are some atheists who simply don't believe with absolutely no reason for it, the vast, vast majority justify their beliefs with some kind of reasoning.

Sure, you can have supremacism in religious belief, such as islamic extremists who try to press their beliefs on others, but the difference is that it's not inherent. When you literally have no reason to believe what you believe, it's hard to rationally argue that your belief is superior to anyone elses. This is contrasted with the supposed superior beliefs of atheists, which they have reasons for.

Sure people can force beliefs on you. Even Hindus and Buddhists may sometimes do that but are you sure that they have the religious duty to do so?

Most Buddhists and hindus probably wouldn't answer yes. However, whether atheists choose to act on it or not, atheism does provide strong motivation to spread your beliefs around, that your belief is "superior" to all others.

Jews usually do not promote Judaism to the goyim since they believe that the goyim do not need to obey the laws of Judaism.

Actually Gentiles do have to follow jewish law, it's just that it's only a few general rules rather than the entire deal. They're called the "Noahide Laws" if you're interested:

Also, consider the plight the Soviets faced. In their nation, the Orthodox faith basically let the Tsar to do with the serfs as they pleased. Religion supported their oppressor, of course they didn't like it.

Serfdom was abolished in 1861, and they were enslaved to landlords not the tsar.... The Soviets didn't even rebel against the Tsar...

^Yep. I do believe we need judges and jury in religious debates. There are too many litigators but not enough people in the middle who make sure that all views are treated on the neutral ground and no logical mistakes are made.

^No this is not what I mean. I mean rule-enforcers of religious debates. There are few people who are even interested in unbiased debates. The theists usually have an obligation to defend theism and atheists usually just mock theism without any real arguments.